New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

On May 20, 2010, a New Jersey judge ruled that a new law requiring public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health insurance can go into effect on May 21, 2010.

As reported in the Asbury Park Press, unions for police and firefighters asked the Superior Court for a temporary restraining order that would have kept the law from taking effect in certain situations. The request was part of a larger lawsuit that seeks to block the new law, which is part of the State’s efforts to hold down costs by being tougher on public employees and their unions, including those working for local government.

The new law, championed by Governor Chris Christie, requires the contributions of employees once their current collective bargaining agreements expire. Many public employees already contribute at least 1.5 percent of their salaries to health coverage. Other locals have chosen smaller pay raises to keep free health care, or have switched to inferior insurance coverage to keep it free. 

The unions’ main contention was that the amount employees pay for their health insurance should be worked out in contract negotiations, not imposed by the State. According to the judge, “not every term and condition on which a collective bargaining unit would want to negotiate is fair play.” The judge also rejected the unions’ arguments that the law amounts to an unfair tax on the State’s roughly 400,000 public employees or that the law is vague.

The unions will get another chance to make their case in court later. While the unions ultimately hope to stop the law from being enforced entirely, the main concern in this case was narrow. Police and firefighters are prohibited by state law from going on strike. When their contract negotiations reach an impasse, they go to a lengthy arbitration process. In essence, the unions argued the 1.5 percent payment requirement should not apply to the 215 local unions currently in the arbitration process.

Please continue to check this blog periodically for updates regarding this litigation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Thursday, February 25, 2010, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce announced bipartisan Assembly legislation to reform public worker pensions and health benefits has been introduced.

They also said additional legislation to target pension and benefit reforms at state authorities and agencies and to close a loophole that allows public employees to collect a full pension while collecting an additional public salary are being finalized and will soon also be introduced.

Oliver and DeCroce sponsored the bills introduced, but additional sponsors will soon be added. The following bills were introduced:

A2461, which would:

• Limit pension system enrollment to new full-time employees who work at least 35 hours per week for the State or 32 hours for local government and schools;
• Base pensions for new police and firefighters on the three highest salary years rather than the highest single year;
• Impose a pensionable salary cap for new employees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System and the State Police Retirement System; and
• Repeal 2003 legislation that allowed a police or firefighter to retire at any age with 25 years of service credit on a special retirement allowance of 70 percent of final compensation.

A2460, which would:

• Require all public employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their salary toward health benefits after the expiration of a current contract;
• Require new state workers to work at least 35 per hours per week to qualify for health benefits; and
• Require all newly-hired employees to pay at least 1.5 percent of their base pension toward health benefits upon retirement.

A2459, which would:

• Eliminate the sick leave injury program; and

ACR115, which would:

• Ask voters during a November election to amend the State Constitution to eventually require the State to pay the full amount of its required pension fund contribution.

This legislation serves as a companion to the legislation that was recently introduced in the State Senate. As such, please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding the same as it has tremendous implications for New Jersey Public Safety Officers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employees in New Jersey’s largest state-worker union overwhelmingly ratified a revised contract agreement on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 that defers a raise and trades furloughs this year for future vacation days. With a little over 13,000 votes cast online or by phone by the deadline, the margin was 69 percent to 31 percent according to the Communication Workers of America. All four bargaining units, those represented clerical workers, professionals and two tiers of supervisors, voted for the revised deal, which bars layoffs until 2011. 

Workers in the CWA, which covers about half the state’s workforce, agreed to defer a 3.5 percent raise that was due July 1, 2009 by 18 months; they will get two 3.5 percent raises in fiscal 2011. Workers also agreed to nine furlough days over the coming year, on top of one taken in May. In exchange, they receive seven days off from work they can take starting in July 2010 or cash out when they leave state employment, at their pay rate at that time. 

The State agreed not to layoff any workers until January 2011 or add more unpaid furloughs before July 2011. If the State lays off any worker before January 2011, not counting any fired for disciplinary reasons or for cause, all state workers immediately get the deferred 3.5 percent raise and no further furloughs are required.

Workers due to receive increment raised in fiscal 2010 based on their years of service will get those increases. The nine unpaid furlough days include the day after Thanksgiving this year and Lincoln’s Birthday in 2010. The other seven dates will be worked out by workers and their supervisors and must be taken by the end of June 2010.

Republicans, who are hopeful that Governor Corzine will be replaced in this fall’s election, said the agreement ties the hands of the next governor to deal with next year’s multi-billion dollar deficit. “The governor did not need to negotiate these costly, election-year concessions. The courts had upheld his right to furlough workers as he originally proposed. The governor traded a plan that would have saved money during a recession for one that may very well slow the state’s recovery,” said Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean, Jr., R-Union.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 3, 2009, the State of New Jersey’s largest public employee union indicated it would accept a wage freeze and unpaid furlough days to help reduce spending under a tentative deal according to Governor Jon Corzine.

Corzine called the agreement with the Communication Workers of America “very important for our budget to make sure that we get something that is a very substantial giveback.” According to Corzine, negotiations are continuing with other unions along with CWA.

Corzine stated, “There is a tentative agreement on wage givebacks and furloughs that has yet more details to be ironed out, and that has to be appropriately negotiated with other unions. I expect there will be an agreement on the terms that are negotiated at the collective bargaining table, not just with CWA but with all of the various parties that are involved.”

Although details of the deal were not provided, senior Democratic officials told the Star Ledger the pact would include ten (10) furlough days in the budget year starting July 1, along with a wage freeze and some “bankable” paid personal days that workers could take in the future.

Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee char Barbara Buono said the tentative agreement, if approved by other unions, would lead to at least $300 million in savings for the $28.6 billion budget proposed for the new fiscal year. 

Corzine imposed two furlough days before the current budget year ends June 30 and was seeking 12 more days in the new budget. Union members have protested the furloughs and criticized the Governor. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A very interesting article and interview most recently appeared in the New York Times regarding police salaries, pay raises, furloughs, and lay offs in the Township of East Brunswick.  The article has relevance to the entire state of the economy in New Jersey.  We wanted to share this article with you as it is pertinent to what many departments are going through during this difficult period of securing a raise in wages and benefits.  The article can be found in its entirety at the link listed below.

New York Times Article

Best --Frank M. Crivelli, Esq.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jerry DeMarco, a reporter with the website www.examiner.com has reported that significantly more police unions around the state are turning towards interest arbitration as a means to settle their contract due to the hard line stance that many municipalities and county governments have taken during negotiations.

DeMarco reported that the average salary increase for arbitration awards dipped slightly last year, to 3.73 percent from 3.77 percent, according to the New Jersey Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC). Furthermore, salary increases from voluntary settlements averaged 3.92 percent, down from 3.97 percent in 2007. PERC records show that in Northern New Jersey, nearly a half-dozen awards made by arbitrators this year average 3.92 a year in their overall impact on police salaries over the life of the contracts.

The article further reports that a long-running contract dispute in Englewood, New Jersey, finally ended in December, with police getting a 4% hike for 2007 through 2009, and a 3.8% increase for 2010. Fort Lee police, similarly, got 4%for 2007 and 2008 and 3.5%for 2009 and 2010.  North Arlington police, who filed for arbitration nearly a year ago, were awarded 15.25%over four years in September, 2008.

Interest arbitration is always a viable option for dispute resolution when public safety unions reach an impasse with their governmental employers. The Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act is the statute that governs interest arbitration within the state of New Jersey; and should a public safety collective bargaining unit make the decision that contract negotiations have reached an impasse, this act will be the controlling piece of legislation in the arbitration process. 

Prior to filing for interest arbitration, it is advisable that the union’s executive board familiarize themselves with the Police and Fire Public Interest Arbitration Reform Act, and the criteria that is utilized by arbitrators in issuing an award. Furthermore, the collective bargaining unit should ensure that they do not walk into the arbitration process alone. It is imperative that they consult with and hire competent counsel prior to the initiation of the petition for interest arbitration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 30, 2008, The Press of Atlantic City reported that new Ocean City, New Jersey Police Officers will make approximately $5,000 less under the contract that was recently approved by the PBA and city council. The contract with the Policemen's Benevolent Association Local 61 also reflected a move to the state health-insurance system from the city’s own health system. The city has cited double digit increases in premium costs as the reason for moving from its own plan to the State Health Benefits Program. The city further stated that it plans to move all municipal employees to the state benefits program as soon as practicable. 

The contract also reflected a 3.5 percent increase in salary for 2008, a 3.85 percent increase in salary for 2009, a 3.9 percent increase in salary for 2010 and a 3.8 percent increase in salary for 2011.

However where the contract strayed from the traditional path was the establishment of a two-tier pay system reflecting a cut in salary for new hires from $42,200 to $37,500. The contract also changed a longevity payment from a range of 0 to 12 percent to a flat dollar bonus based on years of service.

Presently contract negotiations with the city fire union have reached an impasse and are in binding interest arbitration.

We should take a few teaching points away from the settlement of this particular contract. 

• First, I believe we will see a greater trend developing where municipalities will continue to move away from their own health plan system and opt into the State Health Benefit Program as a cost saving measure. 

• Second, in today’s economy and with the poor self inflicted financial condition of the state of New Jersey, municipal aide is being cut which means less money for pay raises and benefits. The days of seeing 4% increases will be harder to come by in the immediate future. Furthermore, raises for 2008 will probably be less than the years that follow. 

• Finally, it is interesting that the PBA agreed to lower the starting salary of new officers. While there may be a multitude of economic reasons for this decision, we should not speculate why this concession was made without understanding the dynamics of the department’s man power, Table of Organization, and the benefits conferred upon the members for making the concession.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Currently, many labor organizations representing public employees are negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the State of New Jersey. One of the most significant issues surrounding these negotiations involves the healthcare/benefit program provided by the State of New Jersey to its employees. Specifically, the State’s proposal regarding the dollar amount of employee contributions to the healthcare plan provided by the State, also known as premium sharing, has become vigorously contested by many labor organizations. As such, the State Health Benefits Program has again risen to the forefront of labor law consciousness.

The operation of the State Health Benefits Program (hereinafter referred to as “the Program”) is governed by the New Jersey State Health Benefits Program Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.25 to -17.45. The goal of the Act is to provide comprehensive health benefits for eligible public employees and their families at “tolerable” cost. In essence, it establishes a plan for state funding and private administration of a health benefits program which will protect public employees from catastrophic health expenses. In addition, it encourages public employees to rely on the Program instead of seeking protection in the commercial insurance market. Heaton v. State Health Benefits Commission, 264 N.J. Super. 141, 151 (App. Div. 1993).   

The Act also spawned the State Health Benefits Commission (hereinafter referred to as “SHBC”). The SHBC is entrusted to establish the Program by negotiating and purchasing medical, surgical, hospital, and major medical benefits for participating public employees and their families, “in the best interests of the State and its employees” as well as retaining exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputed matters under the plan. N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.27 to -17.28. The SHBC is entitled to establish rules and regulations as deemed reasonable and necessary for the administration of the Act. See N.J.A.C. 17:9-1.1 to -7.4. The Act also states that the SHBC may set forth limitations and exclusions in coverage as it finds necessary to administer the SHBP.

In undertaking a very consequential role in the financial security of public employees and their families, the State has the duty and responsibility to bargain fairly with them. Hidden or unfair reservations in insurance policies are ignored because they do not reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties. Voorhees v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 165, 175 (1992); Sparks v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 100 N.J. 325, 336 (1985). Because of the significance of health insurance to public employees and their families, and the Legislature’s undertaking to furnish insurance and determine its scope, one of the goals of the Legislature must have been to assure the fair and even-handed application of the Program provisions. Inevitably, the issue of premium sharing and its potential ramifications will certainly be followed by many public employees and labor organizations throughout the negotiation process to determine whether it is violative of the Program’s policies. 

Presently the state has proposed that all state civilian employees and law enforcement personnel contribute 1.5% of their salary towards health insurance. Certain state public employee labor unions and law enforcement labor unions have agreed to premium share at the 1.5% rate. However certain attorneys practicing labor law believe that there are constitutional issues with percentage premium sharing. We will follow this issue as it winds its way through interest arbitration and possibly the courts of New Jersey.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 11, 2008, the New Jersey Law Enforcement Supervisors Association (“NJLESA”) and New Jersey Law Enforcement Commanding Officers Association (“NJLECOA”), jointly filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County against the State of New Jersey challenging the viability of N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13, the provisions of New Jersey law providing convention leave for State employees.

It is alleged that on or around July 15, 2008, NJLESA, the exclusive representative of those employees in the primary level supervisory law enforcement unit, and NJLECOA, the exclusive representative of superior officers and other command law enforcement personnel holding the rank of Captain or its equivalency in classified career service, requested a leave of absence with pay for certain union officials and duly authorized delegates within their organizations to attend a state convention jointly hosted by NJLESA and NJLECOA. In response, the New Jersey State Office of Employee Relations denied the request and took the position that it was not permitted to grant plaintiffs’ request because neither NJLESA nor NJLECOA were affiliated with any of the organizations delineated in N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13 which are entitled to convention leave.

The complaint asserts N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13 are arbitrarily exclusive in conferring the benefit of convention leave on certain fraternal organizations while excluding others, thereby violating certain provisions of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. Consequently, NJLESA and NJLECOA seek a declaration that N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:6-1.13 are unconstitutional or, alternatively, for an order directing the State of New Jersey to award convention leave to members of their organization. It will be interesting to see how this suit develops and how the state of New Jersey reacts to preserving this piece of legislation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the world of Public Employee Discipline as it pertains to New Jersey municipal police officers, we often turn to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, or more commonly referred to as the “45 day rule", in ensuring that municipalities act within a reasonable time frame in bringing disciplinary charges against public safety officers. The New Jersey Attorney General’s Guidelines provide that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147, disciplinary charges alleging a violation of the agency’s rules and regulations must be filed within 45 days of the date the person filing the charge obtained sufficient information to file the charge. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 states that, a “Complaint charging a violation of the internal rules and regulations… shall be filed no later than the 45^th day after the date on which person filing the complaint obtained sufficient information to file the matter upon which the complaint is based.”

Many municipalities, police departments, and collective bargaining units have interpreted N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 as being applicable to all disciplinary charges and alleged misconduct whether the same violated internal rules, regulations, or procedures or in the alternative fell under misconduct as defined under Title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code, or 2C criminal misconduct. However, the world of police discipline as we used to understanding it no longer exists. The Appellate division has clarified N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147.

In the case of McElwee v. Borough of Fieldsboro, A-1230-06T3, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division opined that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147’s time limit for bringing disciplinary charges against an employee does not apply when the charges are based on misconduct grounded in title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code, nor 2C of the New Jersey Criminal Code. Thus, municipalities may take their time in charging alleged misconduct and do not have to adhere to the “45 day” rule so long as the alleged misconduct is grounded in title 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code or 2C of the New Jersey Criminal Code.

It appears that the only way collective bargaining units can now broaden the scope of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 is to include a contractual clause in collective bargaining agreements that places time restraints on “all disciplinary charges”. The bottom line is that the protection New Jersey municipal police officers once enjoyed under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147 is not as broadly defined as it used to be. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a non-published opinion, the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the Public Employment Relations Commission’s (PERC) decision to restrain binding arbitration of a grievance filed by PBA Local 105 for the payment of compensatory time off for work performed by essential employees during the 2006 governmental shutdown was lawful. In 2006, under a declaration of emergency, Governor Jon Corzine shut down the operation of the State of New Jersey due to the government’s failure to agree upon an operating budget. In the case of State of New Jersey Department of Corrections v. PBA Local 105, 32-2-0507, a ruling from PERC upholding a Scope of Negotiations petition filed by the State of New Jersey concerning the union’s inability to grieve essential employee compensation under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-2.5(d) was reviewed. Under New Jersey labor law, employees may only grieve alleged negotiated contractual violations that have not been previously legislated by the State of New Jersey. 

In this instance, the Appellate Court found that under N.J.A.C. 4A:6-2.5(d), the New Jersey Department of Personnel left no doubt that any compensation originating from a declaration of emergency is determined by statute under subsection 4A of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Therefore the payment of compensatory time off during a state of emergency was preempted from negotiations and not grievable. The bottom line is if you are deemed an essential employee and you are called in to work during an emergency while all non-essential personnel are home enjoying the day off, you will get compensated at your regular rate of pay, and no more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link